getAuditEvents

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a 'Chronological list of system events', which gives some output context, but lacks critical details like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage context, parameter explanations, and return information in four concise sentences. Every sentence adds value with zero waste. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does well explaining parameters and return format. However, as a monitoring tool with no annotations, it should address more behavioral aspects like access permissions, data limits, or system impact. The description is adequate but has clear gaps for this context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains all four parameters (username, global_id, date_from, date_to) with clear semantic meaning: filtering by user, document, and date range. The date format (ISO8601) is specified. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover default behaviors or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves audit trail data with the verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'audit trail of all actions performed in RSpace'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on system monitoring rather than document/content operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides implied usage context with 'Monitor document access, modifications, and user activity', suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.